Cool Vocab and "OG" Music

I had never deeply studied the definitions we read about until today and I wish I had known them sooner. Knowing about autographs, holographs, sources, urtexts, and facsimiles in the musical context makes me a more informed educator and musician. I always thought that urtexts were almost god-like-- if you had the urtext to something, that was THE edition to learn from. However, it was interesting to learn that urtexts don't necessarily reflect a composer's edits to their piece, and therefore do not reflect the composer's true intentions. Actually, a main theme I'm learning from this course is to be extra cognizant of what's real information and what isn't. I feel I've been hoodwinked for years!

Deciphering the difference between autographs and holographs took some brain power. If I'm understanding this correctly, holographs imply that the original author wrote the document themselves. Autographs don't necessarily have to be written by the composer but are still approved/signed by them (right?). This makes sense, and I can see where it would be difficult to distinguish the difference between Medieval autographs from copies. I'm wondering, does any type of document have more significance or "clout" over the other? Or, are they used at the same level where just the text is physically scribed by different people? I would be interested to discuss this more in class. However, I just want to mention the beauty of facsimiles. Personally, I think having a true copy of the original is almost as special as having the real thing yet are more easily accessible. When we looked the Rite of Spring facsimile in class today, it was breathtaking to see Stravinsky's original score markings and see first-hand how he wanted his music to be performed.

The definition of sources completely shifted what I refer to as a source! They no longer just refer to places I get information from for a research paper, but instead help us interpret a composer's intent on printed music. The more I read about sources, the more it made sense to me that they're difficult to print. Sometimes there are too many ambiguities in printed music, even urtext. A question raised in the article was when editing/publishing a piece of music, do you present the original version of the piece or the edition the composer last wrote? I believe both options are valid and it is up to the performer which one they choose to study. As long as there are no major errors, both editions are true, valid reflections of the composer, one just developed later than the other. At the end of the day, each musician or conductor will make their own musical decisions and put their own spin on their performance. Because of this, we may never really know what some composers wanted their pieces to sound like. 

As an ending note, the Art of Making a Book video was gorgeous. It's such a tedious yet beautiful and rewarding process. I feel that reading books that are/were produced this way (as compared to a modern machine) makes the reading experience that much more special. Reading a hand-crafted book can add to and enhance the book's contents and that's relatable to music. Playing an electric keyboard and then playing a Steinway grand piano have two different feelings. You could be playing the same piece with the same inflections, but one instrument is going to carry a bit more beauty and uniqueness...